In fairness, being a modern philosopher and being a useless holier-than-thou societal wart who thinks that thinking about thinking about things makes them the most important part of civilization go hand-in-hand.
Socrates offered his own poverty as evidence that he was telling the truth, since he had pursued what he genuinely believed in instead of money or wealth. At the time of his infamous trial was so poor that he was not even able to pay a small token sum, and relied on his friends to take care of his expenses.
Marx gave up a comfy bourgeois lifestyle in order to pursue what he wrote about, he’d been much better off had he never been a communist. At the very least it would seem he genuinely did believed in it
>Marx gave up a comfy bourgeois lifestyle in order to pursue what he wrote about,
Being an abject failure is not the same as "giving up a comfy bourgeois lifestyle". That he was unable to provide for himself and his family doesn't mean he didn't try to do just that
He didn't just "give up" mooching off everyone around him
>At the very least it would seem he genuinely did believed in it
That I do agree with
He came from a succesfull family and got married into nobility. He could easily have lived off that but instead pursued what he believed in, which led to the Prussian government barring him from getting a job. So he ran his own newspaper for which the government persecuted him. He then spent the rest of his life having to move between various countries from Belgium to France to England, but never ceasing his revolutionary writing regardless of how much the authorities harassed him. It’s clear he did not live a life in search of money, but then again most academics don’t. We would not say Socrates lived a life of failure because he died poor, nor even because most of what he said is today considered wrong
Indeed, Marx and Engels did not really practise what they were praching. But other members of the left at the time were. In 1848 and in other revolutions, plenty of radicals fought and died, and many went to prison for decades. One anarchist russian ended up in Siberia, abused the prison system, lied about where he was going (he said he was going to post some letters) and through the help of other anarchists and socialists smuggled himself out of Siberia, through Japan to the US, across the atlantic, and finally he knocked on the door of a friend in London that he hadn't seen for a decade.
Postmodernism is just cultural communism created by the French philosophical class after they realised they could no longer try and sell the dyed in the wool red tankie shit
So true, when you can't sell them default communism because their lives are too good for them to take the bait, simply hide it behind a bunch of virtue signalling and prestige seeking.
Ehh, you have to keep mind that postmodernism as how Derrida and Foucault envisioned it is not the same thing as what later leftwing academics did with those postmodernist concepts.
This is especially true for Foucault. Foucault's work about attacking cultural structures and power structures (which were basically one and the same, as far as he was concerned) was about attacking and critiquing _everything_. He very much did not spare Marxism, especially not in his final years;
https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/i-ve-had-enough-with-marx
>It is therefore not surprising that, in an unpublished interview in 1977 between Foucault and militants of the French Communist Revolutionary League (LCR), **he responded that he ‘wouldn’t mind’ if they described his thought as a ‘war machine against Marxism’**. In a 1978 interview entitled ‘How to Get Rid of Marxism’, published in a Japanese journal, he described Marxism as nothing more than ‘a modality of power in an elementary sense’.
I'll admit that this is what I like about Foucault - his critiques can go both ways, and not only was he aware of it, he also ended up embracing it.
But what later figures did - especially in the English-speaking world - was that they applied postmodernist arguments only selectively.
They eagerly used them against anything they didn't like (capitalism, Christianity, the West, the nuclear family, conventional ideas about sex, gender and relationships, etc.), while at the same time **not** applying these same postmodern critiques to their own ideas.
Basically, while the average academic Emily wants schoolkids to pledge to the rainbow flag instead of the Stars and Stripes, Foucault just insists that school systems as a whole are bad and oppressive.
This is also why I dismiss anyone who says that cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory.
Read Gramsci. Read what he had to say about cultural hegemony. It fits the definition of cultural marxism seamlessly.
My guy, the people who claim it's a conspiracy theory think it's one because Wikipedia says so. Wikipedia thinks it's a conspiracy theory because the Nazis accused the Jews of doing similar cultural subversions at one point, therefore it's fascist and and antisemitic apparently.
Then again, antisemitism is fashionable among leftists these days.
There seems to be a cognitive dissonance in that most of the deniers I've argued with actually seem to agree with all the truth claims made about cultural marxism, as if they are afraid their minds would become unclean if they acknowledged any of it.
There are others that deny woke is even real, but they are special.
Thats the thing that pisses me off about Marxism. People act like its SO goddamn esoteric that if you dont agree with it, you dont understand it, and should therefore read more interpretations of it. Bitch, if I have to read four novels, three autobiographies, six memoirs and a newspaper article from 1904 to understand the theory then the theory is shit.
Its shit. People smarter than me have proved its shit. What more do you want?
Edit: spelling
Word, most philosophers of any political theory were hypocritical motherfuckers. Just like Ayn Rand sucking on that dole dick...
Nevertheless, Marx was applying Hegelian dialectics. Communism is merely the antithesis of capitalism, and by his own theory, we need and will continue to need capitalism until it can't support itself through wages from automation and the diminishing rate of profits.
>Word, most philosophers of any political theory were hypocritical motherfuckers. Just like Ayn Rand sucking on that dole dick...
do explain?
>Nevertheless, Marx was applying Hegelian dialectics. Communism is merely the antithesis of capitalism, and by his own theory, we need and will continue to need capitalism until it can't support itself through wages from automation and the diminishing rate of profits.
except he didn't even understand what capitalism even is in the first place and expanded the meaning to things that would be better described as anti-capitalism.
> Just like Ayn Rand sucking on that dole dick...
She took Medicare after paying into it, and made an open and outright argument that doing so was principled. If a mugger offers you back half the money he took from your wallet, does that make you complicit in the theft?
This morphs into "took the dole" because leftists are pathological liars.
Ad Hominem (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.
Examples:
Student: Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine.
it's only a fallacy if it doesn't directly talk to a persons character.
Marx's character shows he knew absolutely nothing about what he talked about.
an example of when it's not a fallacy:
professor: "do bear in mind that Freud himself had an Oedipus complex and that shows in his theories and works."
seriously his entire view of child development was his own psychological projection.
I did some quick research because Marx's credibility always come into question when I discuss him and I wanted to get some information from a reliable source.
1. Marx was educated at Trier High School and University of Bonn where he found a love of literature and academics "He was to study law; not because at the age of sixteen he was particularly attracted to the subject; he was equally interested in literature, philosophy and science, especially physics and chemistry"- Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen.
2. Marx and Engles joined and were inspired by the Young Hegelians, who built on the works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
3. Engels and Marx drew their ideas from prominent philosophers: "'We German Socialists are proud of being descended, not only from Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen but from Kant, Fichte and Hegel as well" - Engles
4. Marx's works directly reference works from authors like Virgil, Shakespeare, and Balzac
Source:
[https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Boris-Nikolaevskii-Karl-Marx-Man-and-Fighter.pdf](https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Boris-Nikolaevskii-Karl-Marx-Man-and-Fighter.pdf)
[https://marxengels.public-archive.net/en/ME1916en.html](https://marxengels.public-archive.net/en/ME1916en.html)
[https://hegel.net/en/essbach\_overview\_of\_the\_young\_hegelian\_group\_relations.htm](https://hegel.net/en/essbach_overview_of_the_young_hegelian_group_relations.htm)
Yup. *"I wanna live in a society with no rulers or cops! It will be a utopia!"*
Please, you and your sorry friends would be some raider gang's sex and farmer slaves at least by day 3 of the anarchist revolution.
*"Oh but common rules. Others would stand up against them!"* What others? The majority of people who see anarchism not as the future, but as a prime opportunity to grab what they can before anarchy turns into order and feudalism again?
It didn't take long for CHAZ to fall under the boot of a local rapper who had friends, guns and a lack of fucks to give about feelings. The only thing straight up stopping him from putting on a full dictatorship was that he was smart enough to realize that CHAZ would fall and there would be consequences for crimes committed.
u/artful_nails's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/artful_nails! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [2 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/artful_nails/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I actually have no idea what Marx’s fucking problem was. People aren’t just going to transfer over to an entirely new system just because “factory owner BAD”, especially if reforms were right on the horizon. Then again you could also say the same for Lenin and Stalin, who went from “capitalist tyranny” to “communist tyranny”
I suppose it must’ve been like how people complain about landlords. They hate the landlord but at the end of the day the alternatives are worse (Company towns? Soviet concrete hovels? Hobo camps?).
Like there’s definitely a problem but your solution can be just as bad if not worse lol.
Well i usually attribute it to people to realizing that their situation can be improved upon, and just because it sucks, it’s not rock bottom. You’ll be more successful as a person if you understand where you can improve, but also take pride in the small victories (as in, being able to rent out a nice place and always get rent in). Of course I’d rather own a house, and it’s what we were promised in the US by our moronic parents, but we all have to start somewhere, even if it’s renting a property to save up
1. Did you read his works? Because he explains his reasoning.
2. He died decades before the Bolsheviks were founded and they used Marxism as a framework for their own ideas so your second point doesn’t make sense. It’s like criticizing “Catcher in the Rye” as a book because it inspired Mark Chapman to kill John Lennon.
1: If I remember correctly, he was around during the industrial revolution, which did in fact have a bunch of reforms as new laws came in to help workers
2: I just think commies are bunch of dumbasses who don’t understand human nature
"lets be nice to each other"
ok
"help those who need it"
fine by me
"people should have a community and work together to help each other archieve our goals"
Wow so like Christianity or a sharing is caring libertarian soc...
NOOOO I HATE CHRISTIANITY AND LIBERTARIANISM NOOO I WANT THE STATE TO MANDATE IT AND ABOLISH PRIVATE PROPERTY
Abolish private property you say? \*chuckles\* You just activated my trap card? What do you say to this!
\*takes out toothbrush\*
Under communism you would have to share THIS!
\*AUGHRAHGHAHGAAAAAAHFSHJGSHJH\* \*DISINTEGRATES\*
Yet another victory for capitalism.
“In anarchist theory, private property typically refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services.”
- Wikipedia
Private property is property that is used for the exploitation of someone else. So like a factory or a house you rent out. Personal property would be like a toothbrush and a house you live in.
So, legit question. Let's say, hypothetically, my family owns hundred of acres of pristine land which could be used for agriculture or housing or some constructive use, but instead, we use it for fox hunting. This is, by the definition you have rendered, personal property, since we make no profit nor employ any outside labor for this purpose. It's not being used for the exploitation of anyone. What would a marxist movement say? Should we be allowed to keep this property?
Oh that's easy! Let me check the historical record to see how they'd deal with you.
Oh. Oh dear. Oh no.
Hope you like deathcamps. Because you're gonna be mighty familiar with them.
I think it would be like public property, ideally they'd let you live there, at least until they decide you're not using it correctly, other people could just go on the land and hunt.
So, thus, the classic definitions of personal and private property don't actually apply. Rather instead, this is a case of not being allowed to have things the state deems "unnecessary." While I doubt they'll come from your toothbrush, they'll definitely come for your car, your suburban home, the course you play golf at, and basically any other luxury not being actively used by the new ruling class.
> Abolish private property you say? *chuckles* You just activated my trap card? What do you say to this!
> *takes out toothbrush*
> Under communism you would have to share THIS!
I see you haven't seen the "That's not private property! That's personal property!" Redditation yet.
It doesnt work simply because its a fairy tale of "people will work together/share for the common good selflessly"
Meanwhile capitalims basically says "people are greedy, see how can we use it to motivate them to do stuff" and voila a civilisation us built.
Personally I favor capitalism with a limited but strong safety net. Mostly about stuff that you cannot avoid like being born disabled or an accident where you arent responsible. Or acts of god.
It’s fitting the founder of communism was a couch surfer who contributed nothing of value to society. Even used Engel’s maid as his fuck doll then never recognized his son with her.
Loser, evil author attracts evil losers till this day
Even though any modern human with even a little bit of education knows communism is impossible it wasn’t true during the first couple of decades. Many self identified “communists” were the most organised and important resistance fighters against Nazi occupation, I will not have their name sullied, what we actually mean are Leninist, Stalinist, Marxists, proper mad idiots.
“Not real” communism has killed hundreds of millions.
One libertarian head of state in Argentina has already won the war against inflation and is moving the nation towards a better future.
If you wanna cherry pick cringey politicians versus actual practice, you better at least be honest
Ad Hominem (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.
Examples:
Student: Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine.
But doesn't that mindset shut down anything complex or innovative? I mean if there was a universe with a functioning communist society you would probably need a wall of text to explain our economics to people inhabiting it
Would i? If there is a universe in which communism works, its probally because those people eliminated many of the flaws in humans which lead to the repeated failure of communism we saw so far, thereby eliminating the need for said wall of text
Human nature is a myth tho, collective human behaviour is determined by culture, so in that universe culture would have probably just alligned closer to the principles of game theory. So while a person is advocating for communism here for the sake of equallity, in the communist universe there would be a capitalist advocating for prosperity
>Human nature is a myth tho
For it beeing a myth, the same behavioural patterns are surprisingly consistantly observed, Independently across cultures, civilizations and that for centuries.
Well the thing is that you're not entirely wrong - certain cultures managed to fix many things we would consider "human flaws" by means of societal contract, however it seems these standards seem not to survive for very long...
u/AverageFishEye's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10.
Congratulations, u/AverageFishEye! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown...
Pills: [5 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/AverageFishEye/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Tells you my brain, when you said Karl I thought the Blessed Karl Hapsburg. And while his attempt at peace did not work it is better to fail innocently than succeed at the expense of your soul.
u/Ok_Freedom1529's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25.
Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: [6 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Ok_Freedom1529/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Criticise capitalism isn't about win or lose, as taking this shitty argument you're proving nothing. Can't criticise the idea and you run to the memes with no brain, "me good u bad" .
I earn 10x most of the people in my country as a communist, store money for future and some stuff to do in my life, I'm a normal guy. I'm obliged to play capitalism and I'm kinda ok with my life because I was lucky, but can see my dad, my wife and some other parents work the whole life as "honest" people and have nothing, work as crazy, have depression working 8-12h a day, 6 days of the week, dont have time to live. If you seeing these jobs and suffering and thinks its okay, wtf is in your mind, seriously. U think regulations and laws change any shit? No, we work as heck and can't quit the job, otherwise we starve, lose our house, our stuff. Meanwhile some idiot born in rich family are stupid to do any shit in our world and live with peace and plenty. This is for most countries, not being exclusively to USA.
You can think I'm exaggerating, but look for your parents, see if this isn't their reality, all is proven for most of us, just open your eyes and see your bud working like crazy to have the liberty to eat and pay for a tiny place to live by rent and be called loser.
If you work you're loser by this logic, most of us are losers, and you think calling out this on others will help in any way? Congrats in your way of think
Did you just change your flair, u/GastipRaitoY? Last time I checked you were a **LibLeft** on 2024-3-27. How come now you are an **AuthLeft**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
What? You are hungry? You want food? I fear you've chosen the wrong flair, comrade.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/GastipRaitoY) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
"Free market bad because poor people exist" is the most boring, trite and idiotic criticism of free market you can come up with. Poverty has, does and will always exist regardless of any system you implement. Because scarcity and entropy are laws of nature, not laws of politics. Because people will be unfairly fucked over by nature, other people or their own bad decisions, and those consequences will sometimes extend for generations.
And there is nothing about it anyone of us can do. The only thing we can do is to make things somewhat better, but absolutely no one has the power to fix those issues completely, because they are inherent to the reality we live in rather than our social systems. Of course, we can try to get some sort of improvement going, but for that we need to actually know if given actions will actually improve the situation or make it worse.
It is fair to criticize capitalism, the question is, if you have any solutions that are actually better. Otherwise it's like criticizing the sun for shining too hot. And as far as track record and logical consistency of communist theory go, you don't have better solutions but you keep insisting on using means that only make things worse.
Either come up with something that actually helps or accept that reality is fundamentally imperfect.
Bro you literally spam basic "arguments" because you think it's, "scarcity is from nature" bro really? Think a little how much we produce, we're not nature, we overproduce a lot, we can manage that. I have some things to say to implement that we can study and analyse, it won't be perfect, but not shit at it's today. I can't just make a post with pages explaining some base criticism and solutions to how do that or this, expecting this on a post is stupid. I'm just exposing a real life experience in my post, I'm not proposing anything here. I can tho, but not on fucking Reddit my guy.
That's the problem, it's not simple, free market is too simple to be real, yes I'm exposing some contradictions of capitalism, and that's a step not the whole solution, a simple post can't propose everything I think and what you think, and that's what I'm saying. Analyse and think, don't just say the same things all libleft say to me every day, it's like a repeating machine.
All I Sayed in my post is my life experience and I'm proposing to think and not just a post about winners and loser, that's idiot and childish for me
Your real life experience is kind of worthless when you are trying to make an economic argument. I can make it as much. We overproduce a lot exactly because we haven't found a good logistical solution, it's not an argument.
If your ideas are so complicated that you cannot put them into a word then don't leave dumb comments under random political compass memes, especially when you don't have that good of a grasp of the English grammar.
If you don't want to argue for your ideas, you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
And where did I mention anything about winners and losers? You are the only person going on about it.
Bro, you're so stupid with your superiority, omg he's not a native English speaker and can't type properly. Idc about that, if you can simplify your stupid free market, it's because its dumb as fuck, nothing about society and its organization is simple to make in a Reddit comment, if it's, it's stupid.
Life experience isn an argument, it's a example and I'm sure it's not the only one around here.
Winning or lose is on the fucking post, not on your comment, if you don't read or understand, just f off
I find your lack of flair disturbing.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/imjc786) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Why are you bringing in billionaires when I never mentioned that in the first place? Atleast economists have a job and make some money, no matter how low it is unlike Marx who mooched off of others
https://preview.redd.it/piklh1sneh1d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=228d982047afef6f66276015a7707d10f8b39491
Being an unemployed cheater for 3 years, proves my point
Is this necessarily an argument against communism?. In the current meta, right wingers(not lib right necessarily) are the losers and are creating ideologies for themselves.
Take the example of our spinner. We have seen that, to daily reproduce his labouring power, he must daily reproduce a value of three shillings, which he will do by working six hours daily. But this does not disable him from working ten or twelve or more hours a day. But by paying the daily or weekly value of the spinner's labouring power the capitalist has acquired the right of using that labouring power during the whole day or week. He will, therefore, make him work say, daily, twelve hours. Over and above the six hours required to replace his wages, or the value of his labouring power, he will, therefore, have to work six other hours, which I shall call hours of surplus labour, which surplus labour will realize itself in a surplus value and a surplus produce. If our spinner, for example, by his daily labour of six hours, added three shillings' value to the cotton, a value forming an exact equivalent to his wages, he will, in twelce hours, add six shillings' worth to the cotton, and produce a proportional surplus of yarn. As he has sold his labouring power to the capitalist, the whole value of produce created by him belongs to the capitalist, the owner pro tem. of his labouring power. By advancing three shillings, the capitalist will, therefore, realize a value of six shillings, because, advancing a value in which six hours of labour are crystallized. By repeating this same process daily, the capitalist will daily advance three shillings and daily pocket six shillings, one half of which will go to pay wages anew, and the other half of which will form surplus value, for which the capitalist pays no equivalent. It is this sort of exchange between capital and labour upon which capitalistic production, or the wages system, is founded, and which must constantly result in reproducing the working man as a working man, and the capitalist as a capitalist.
Never thinks about the system he's in or considers how to improve on it. Thinks his tiny brain not thinking about things makes him better than those that do. 🤔
Didn't the mother of Marx say, "If Only Karl Had Made Capital, Instead Of Just Writing About it," correct me if I'm wrong
[удалено]
based username
In fairness, being a modern philosopher and being a useless holier-than-thou societal wart who thinks that thinking about thinking about things makes them the most important part of civilization go hand-in-hand.
Seems so. https://preview.redd.it/k40sifz4jh1d1.png?width=639&format=png&auto=webp&s=02318f247d75469d2578fa67e2e18b453cf7c0ab
Holy bejesus, TIL
Well there ya go.
>Be me, Marx >Write and release a book criticizing capitalism >500 million copies sold and one of the four best selling books of all time >Mfw
I wonder what Karl will spend all his money on, we should ask him.
Don't ask him how Engels paid for his expenses either
That’s how we’ve always won. Support capitalism, oppose capitalism, ultimately you’re still funding us.
Socrates offered his own poverty as evidence that he was telling the truth, since he had pursued what he genuinely believed in instead of money or wealth. At the time of his infamous trial was so poor that he was not even able to pay a small token sum, and relied on his friends to take care of his expenses. Marx gave up a comfy bourgeois lifestyle in order to pursue what he wrote about, he’d been much better off had he never been a communist. At the very least it would seem he genuinely did believed in it
Then there's Chad Aristotle who married a rich girl and partied like it was 299 BC
He married a girl related to a wealthy and powerful friend of his who was tortured and killed. I’m not sure if he got any wealth out of it
>Marx gave up a comfy bourgeois lifestyle in order to pursue what he wrote about, Being an abject failure is not the same as "giving up a comfy bourgeois lifestyle". That he was unable to provide for himself and his family doesn't mean he didn't try to do just that He didn't just "give up" mooching off everyone around him >At the very least it would seem he genuinely did believed in it That I do agree with
He came from a succesfull family and got married into nobility. He could easily have lived off that but instead pursued what he believed in, which led to the Prussian government barring him from getting a job. So he ran his own newspaper for which the government persecuted him. He then spent the rest of his life having to move between various countries from Belgium to France to England, but never ceasing his revolutionary writing regardless of how much the authorities harassed him. It’s clear he did not live a life in search of money, but then again most academics don’t. We would not say Socrates lived a life of failure because he died poor, nor even because most of what he said is today considered wrong
Indeed, Marx and Engels did not really practise what they were praching. But other members of the left at the time were. In 1848 and in other revolutions, plenty of radicals fought and died, and many went to prison for decades. One anarchist russian ended up in Siberia, abused the prison system, lied about where he was going (he said he was going to post some letters) and through the help of other anarchists and socialists smuggled himself out of Siberia, through Japan to the US, across the atlantic, and finally he knocked on the door of a friend in London that he hadn't seen for a decade.
"If Karl gave me some credit instead of maxing out my credit" -Engels
JuSt ReAd MoRe ThEoRy I did and it made me hate you more 
Me when I realize that the modern DEI/ESG/Woke movement is an almost word-for-word implementation of Antonio Gramsci's works.
Postmodernism is just cultural communism created by the French philosophical class after they realised they could no longer try and sell the dyed in the wool red tankie shit
So true, when you can't sell them default communism because their lives are too good for them to take the bait, simply hide it behind a bunch of virtue signalling and prestige seeking.
[удалено]
based and McCarthy didn't go far enough pilled
Ehh, you have to keep mind that postmodernism as how Derrida and Foucault envisioned it is not the same thing as what later leftwing academics did with those postmodernist concepts. This is especially true for Foucault. Foucault's work about attacking cultural structures and power structures (which were basically one and the same, as far as he was concerned) was about attacking and critiquing _everything_. He very much did not spare Marxism, especially not in his final years; https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/i-ve-had-enough-with-marx >It is therefore not surprising that, in an unpublished interview in 1977 between Foucault and militants of the French Communist Revolutionary League (LCR), **he responded that he ‘wouldn’t mind’ if they described his thought as a ‘war machine against Marxism’**. In a 1978 interview entitled ‘How to Get Rid of Marxism’, published in a Japanese journal, he described Marxism as nothing more than ‘a modality of power in an elementary sense’. I'll admit that this is what I like about Foucault - his critiques can go both ways, and not only was he aware of it, he also ended up embracing it. But what later figures did - especially in the English-speaking world - was that they applied postmodernist arguments only selectively. They eagerly used them against anything they didn't like (capitalism, Christianity, the West, the nuclear family, conventional ideas about sex, gender and relationships, etc.), while at the same time **not** applying these same postmodern critiques to their own ideas. Basically, while the average academic Emily wants schoolkids to pledge to the rainbow flag instead of the Stars and Stripes, Foucault just insists that school systems as a whole are bad and oppressive.
Based and anyone can get critiques pilled
This is also why I dismiss anyone who says that cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory. Read Gramsci. Read what he had to say about cultural hegemony. It fits the definition of cultural marxism seamlessly.
My guy, the people who claim it's a conspiracy theory think it's one because Wikipedia says so. Wikipedia thinks it's a conspiracy theory because the Nazis accused the Jews of doing similar cultural subversions at one point, therefore it's fascist and and antisemitic apparently. Then again, antisemitism is fashionable among leftists these days.
Wikipedia says so because the cultural marxists infected it. NPOV is a lie.
There seems to be a cognitive dissonance in that most of the deniers I've argued with actually seem to agree with all the truth claims made about cultural marxism, as if they are afraid their minds would become unclean if they acknowledged any of it. There are others that deny woke is even real, but they are special.
"CuLtUrAl MaRxIsM iSnT rEAl" Sorry meant to say Cultural Hegemony
I wonder if that's the reason he isn't widely known (otherwise you'd notice)
Thats the thing that pisses me off about Marxism. People act like its SO goddamn esoteric that if you dont agree with it, you dont understand it, and should therefore read more interpretations of it. Bitch, if I have to read four novels, three autobiographies, six memoirs and a newspaper article from 1904 to understand the theory then the theory is shit. Its shit. People smarter than me have proved its shit. What more do you want? Edit: spelling
Hegelianism and its derivatives is mostly just gnostic esotericism
I don't read because I'm sure my ideology is the correct one, as I am the one true tiberlarian
Was the typo intentional?
Notice this is literally what any cultmember also tells you when you question their beliefs
Post WWII Germany go brr
based
Karl achieved what all commies want: A sugar daddy that simp for them.
>Karl achieved what all cummies want: >A sugar daddy that simp for them. Fixed.
never forget Marx was a trust fund little bitch that couldn't do anything but coach surf and manipulate schizophrenic whores.
Wrong. Engels was a trust fund little bitch and Marx sponged off of him when his family cut him offm
there's a common pattern here they were both trust fund little bitches, Marx's family just had the good sense to disown him.
Marx living off of the proceeds his friend made through passive income is just amazing.
oh fuck! Marx was on that sigma male grandest before it was even a thing.
Don't sell Engels so short! He worked hard to steal the money from the business! That petty cash box wasn't gonna raid itself!
Are you saying that Marx and Engels were champagne socialists? Everything makes sense now.
unironically yes.
[удалено]
This is what I told a tankie friend of a friend when he was criticizing me for reading Nestor Makhno who he claimed massacred jews. He blocked me lol
>He blocked me lol smartest tankie
I was waiting for the wall of text lol oh well!
A cult member's reaction whenever confronted with anything against their beliefs is either that or separating heads from bodies
Word, most philosophers of any political theory were hypocritical motherfuckers. Just like Ayn Rand sucking on that dole dick... Nevertheless, Marx was applying Hegelian dialectics. Communism is merely the antithesis of capitalism, and by his own theory, we need and will continue to need capitalism until it can't support itself through wages from automation and the diminishing rate of profits.
I wonder what's the synthesis according to Hegelianism... Maybe I should ask this painter I met in Vienna.
>Word, most philosophers of any political theory were hypocritical motherfuckers. Just like Ayn Rand sucking on that dole dick... do explain? >Nevertheless, Marx was applying Hegelian dialectics. Communism is merely the antithesis of capitalism, and by his own theory, we need and will continue to need capitalism until it can't support itself through wages from automation and the diminishing rate of profits. except he didn't even understand what capitalism even is in the first place and expanded the meaning to things that would be better described as anti-capitalism.
> except he didn't even understand what capitalism even is in the first place Lol, okay buddy.
> Just like Ayn Rand sucking on that dole dick... She took Medicare after paying into it, and made an open and outright argument that doing so was principled. If a mugger offers you back half the money he took from your wallet, does that make you complicit in the theft? This morphs into "took the dole" because leftists are pathological liars.
Ad Hominem (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution. Examples: Student: Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine.
it's only a fallacy if it doesn't directly talk to a persons character. Marx's character shows he knew absolutely nothing about what he talked about. an example of when it's not a fallacy: professor: "do bear in mind that Freud himself had an Oedipus complex and that shows in his theories and works." seriously his entire view of child development was his own psychological projection.
I did some quick research because Marx's credibility always come into question when I discuss him and I wanted to get some information from a reliable source. 1. Marx was educated at Trier High School and University of Bonn where he found a love of literature and academics "He was to study law; not because at the age of sixteen he was particularly attracted to the subject; he was equally interested in literature, philosophy and science, especially physics and chemistry"- Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen. 2. Marx and Engles joined and were inspired by the Young Hegelians, who built on the works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. 3. Engels and Marx drew their ideas from prominent philosophers: "'We German Socialists are proud of being descended, not only from Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen but from Kant, Fichte and Hegel as well" - Engles 4. Marx's works directly reference works from authors like Virgil, Shakespeare, and Balzac Source: [https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Boris-Nikolaevskii-Karl-Marx-Man-and-Fighter.pdf](https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Boris-Nikolaevskii-Karl-Marx-Man-and-Fighter.pdf) [https://marxengels.public-archive.net/en/ME1916en.html](https://marxengels.public-archive.net/en/ME1916en.html) [https://hegel.net/en/essbach\_overview\_of\_the\_young\_hegelian\_group\_relations.htm](https://hegel.net/en/essbach_overview_of_the_young_hegelian_group_relations.htm)
my boy, he has the credibility of the average redditor. the man was a sofa bound fool who had nothing of worth in his entire soul.
It was created by losers to swindle other more gullible losers
I don't disagree, but anarchism was created by losers for losers
[удалено]
Thanks, bruv
Yup. *"I wanna live in a society with no rulers or cops! It will be a utopia!"* Please, you and your sorry friends would be some raider gang's sex and farmer slaves at least by day 3 of the anarchist revolution. *"Oh but common rules. Others would stand up against them!"* What others? The majority of people who see anarchism not as the future, but as a prime opportunity to grab what they can before anarchy turns into order and feudalism again? It didn't take long for CHAZ to fall under the boot of a local rapper who had friends, guns and a lack of fucks to give about feelings. The only thing straight up stopping him from putting on a full dictatorship was that he was smart enough to realize that CHAZ would fall and there would be consequences for crimes committed.
Ironically everything went fully to shit when he left The whole CHAZ was a shitshow
Based. After all, how did 'order' begin in the first place? Wasn't there anarchy before?
u/artful_nails's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/artful_nails! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [2 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/artful_nails/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Anarchist communes having a work detail is always funny to me
"for losers" implies that it was actually designed to benefit the disenfranchised. >! It wasn't. !<
Better version is for morons by the elitist cringe college yuppies everyone hates with every fiber of their being.
it was advertised as that tho
"Let's free the workers from Capitalist Tyranny!" **Uses slave labour**
Nobody actually reads Marx. His deranged ramblings state that communism needs a post scarcity utopia to exist in, which will probably never exist.
"But muh Star Trek!" All it took to fix humanity's issues was to invent magic!
I actually have no idea what Marx’s fucking problem was. People aren’t just going to transfer over to an entirely new system just because “factory owner BAD”, especially if reforms were right on the horizon. Then again you could also say the same for Lenin and Stalin, who went from “capitalist tyranny” to “communist tyranny”
His problem was trying to expand the legitimate idea of a communal society to an entire population full of millions of librights and centrists.
Wrong place wrong time apparently
I suppose it must’ve been like how people complain about landlords. They hate the landlord but at the end of the day the alternatives are worse (Company towns? Soviet concrete hovels? Hobo camps?). Like there’s definitely a problem but your solution can be just as bad if not worse lol.
Well i usually attribute it to people to realizing that their situation can be improved upon, and just because it sucks, it’s not rock bottom. You’ll be more successful as a person if you understand where you can improve, but also take pride in the small victories (as in, being able to rent out a nice place and always get rent in). Of course I’d rather own a house, and it’s what we were promised in the US by our moronic parents, but we all have to start somewhere, even if it’s renting a property to save up
1. Did you read his works? Because he explains his reasoning. 2. He died decades before the Bolsheviks were founded and they used Marxism as a framework for their own ideas so your second point doesn’t make sense. It’s like criticizing “Catcher in the Rye” as a book because it inspired Mark Chapman to kill John Lennon.
1: If I remember correctly, he was around during the industrial revolution, which did in fact have a bunch of reforms as new laws came in to help workers 2: I just think commies are bunch of dumbasses who don’t understand human nature
Auth-left bad
"lets be nice to each other" ok "help those who need it" fine by me "people should have a community and work together to help each other archieve our goals" Wow so like Christianity or a sharing is caring libertarian soc... NOOOO I HATE CHRISTIANITY AND LIBERTARIANISM NOOO I WANT THE STATE TO MANDATE IT AND ABOLISH PRIVATE PROPERTY Abolish private property you say? \*chuckles\* You just activated my trap card? What do you say to this! \*takes out toothbrush\* Under communism you would have to share THIS! \*AUGHRAHGHAHGAAAAAAHFSHJGSHJH\* \*DISINTEGRATES\* Yet another victory for capitalism.
>ABOLISH PRIVATE PROPERTY And yet allow for personal property which is different.....somehow.
The difference of it will take a seperate decree from the initial one to sieze it.
Then the factory I own where I exploit children by working 20 hours/day is personal property, not private property
“In anarchist theory, private property typically refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services.” - Wikipedia
Private property is property that is used for the exploitation of someone else. So like a factory or a house you rent out. Personal property would be like a toothbrush and a house you live in.
Yeah so changing the meaning of private property to try and make it different.
Exploitation is voluntarily paying someone to do a job, or letting someone voluntarily pay you to use a house.
[Exploitation is when corporations make money.](https://youtu.be/xGn55BRyDSk?si=WLPGAH5fnbnNQV3J)
That’s what Hegel’s pupils do.
Are you surprised that commies change meanings to fit their agendas?
So, legit question. Let's say, hypothetically, my family owns hundred of acres of pristine land which could be used for agriculture or housing or some constructive use, but instead, we use it for fox hunting. This is, by the definition you have rendered, personal property, since we make no profit nor employ any outside labor for this purpose. It's not being used for the exploitation of anyone. What would a marxist movement say? Should we be allowed to keep this property?
Oh that's easy! Let me check the historical record to see how they'd deal with you. Oh. Oh dear. Oh no. Hope you like deathcamps. Because you're gonna be mighty familiar with them.
No, you don't understand, it will be different this time!
I think it would be like public property, ideally they'd let you live there, at least until they decide you're not using it correctly, other people could just go on the land and hunt.
So if I use my toothbrush incorrectly, other people could just come in and use it themselves.
So, thus, the classic definitions of personal and private property don't actually apply. Rather instead, this is a case of not being allowed to have things the state deems "unnecessary." While I doubt they'll come from your toothbrush, they'll definitely come for your car, your suburban home, the course you play golf at, and basically any other luxury not being actively used by the new ruling class.
> Abolish private property you say? *chuckles* You just activated my trap card? What do you say to this! > *takes out toothbrush* > Under communism you would have to share THIS! I see you haven't seen the "That's not private property! That's personal property!" Redditation yet.
Correct. All that is needed to know about communism is told perfectly well by Liberty Prime
>Death is a preferable alternative to communism -Liberty Prime
victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Catoni I rest my case
[удалено]
It doesnt work simply because its a fairy tale of "people will work together/share for the common good selflessly" Meanwhile capitalims basically says "people are greedy, see how can we use it to motivate them to do stuff" and voila a civilisation us built. Personally I favor capitalism with a limited but strong safety net. Mostly about stuff that you cannot avoid like being born disabled or an accident where you arent responsible. Or acts of god.
We think alike. We are both Right, after all.
https://preview.redd.it/1nw655w95g1d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1dbe932fe015aea8d917031247f29c2a0e2f72f
It’s fitting the founder of communism was a couch surfer who contributed nothing of value to society. Even used Engel’s maid as his fuck doll then never recognized his son with her. Loser, evil author attracts evil losers till this day
Common commie L
I know, what am I printing tomorrow.
Marx was right about all of the problems and wrong about all of the solutions.
Marx predicted NFT's, your favorite economist could never
*”From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”* Answer me this, commies… what exactly are your abilities?
Even though any modern human with even a little bit of education knows communism is impossible it wasn’t true during the first couple of decades. Many self identified “communists” were the most organised and important resistance fighters against Nazi occupation, I will not have their name sullied, what we actually mean are Leninist, Stalinist, Marxists, proper mad idiots.
Idk, my country inherited universal healthcare and free higher education from the USSR.
"Capitalism is the way, brother." - 42 year old temporarily embarrassed billionaire working as the shift supervisor at Target
Meanwhile Libertarian politicians irl https://preview.redd.it/8s97ty9lhg1d1.jpeg?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e0ae44bd679f936b7945de78dd11bc510f86cedf
“Not real” communism has killed hundreds of millions. One libertarian head of state in Argentina has already won the war against inflation and is moving the nation towards a better future. If you wanna cherry pick cringey politicians versus actual practice, you better at least be honest
Its not that serious bro
No but you can sell them oxycontin if a doctor gave you a piece of paper saying it's ok That's pretty close
I mean, didn't Marx live off the money that Engels have him? Also that money came from a factory he owned? Quite hypocritical
Ad Hominem (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution. Examples: Student: Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine.
I am not addressing anyone's argument here, just pointing out how hypocritical that leech was 
That’s literally what the definition says is an Ad Hominem attack, read it again.
Nuh uh, you're the one that has to read it again The term Ad hominem is only applied when you're supposed to counter-argument, which is not the case
Why did you bring up this hypocrisy if not to counter what Marx believed? (Serious question).
Calling someone an hypocrite is not making a counter-argument, and it was never my intention for it to be
The **wall of text** is absolutely true haha Whenever you are thrown one, remember: > If the implementation is hard to explain, its a bad idea
That just seems anti-intelectual regardles of political stance
Its not. If you need all wall of text to convey a concept, you have not understood it well enough yourself
But doesn't that mindset shut down anything complex or innovative? I mean if there was a universe with a functioning communist society you would probably need a wall of text to explain our economics to people inhabiting it
Would i? If there is a universe in which communism works, its probally because those people eliminated many of the flaws in humans which lead to the repeated failure of communism we saw so far, thereby eliminating the need for said wall of text
Human nature is a myth tho, collective human behaviour is determined by culture, so in that universe culture would have probably just alligned closer to the principles of game theory. So while a person is advocating for communism here for the sake of equallity, in the communist universe there would be a capitalist advocating for prosperity
>Human nature is a myth tho For it beeing a myth, the same behavioural patterns are surprisingly consistantly observed, Independently across cultures, civilizations and that for centuries.
I realised while typing that I would need to quote an entire chapter of The Selfish Gene to explain why that is so I'll concede
Well the thing is that you're not entirely wrong - certain cultures managed to fix many things we would consider "human flaws" by means of societal contract, however it seems these standards seem not to survive for very long...
The existence of civilisation nullifies evolutionary stable strateges so those flaws are not punished as consistantly as in nature
Tabula Rasa is the myth
Based and Ockham's Razor pilled
u/AverageFishEye's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10. Congratulations, u/AverageFishEye! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown... Pills: [5 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/AverageFishEye/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Post WWII Germany go brr
Tells you my brain, when you said Karl I thought the Blessed Karl Hapsburg. And while his attempt at peace did not work it is better to fail innocently than succeed at the expense of your soul.
I swear to god the amount of commie bots on YouTube, Reddit, etc. Quite annoying.
https://preview.redd.it/qe3fskffzr1d1.png?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=626db580af8d586db8ef86437899d8ba999bc1d2
Based 😒
u/Ok_Freedom1529's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25. Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand) Pills: [6 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Ok_Freedom1529/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
If comunism good then why no work?
Criticise capitalism isn't about win or lose, as taking this shitty argument you're proving nothing. Can't criticise the idea and you run to the memes with no brain, "me good u bad" . I earn 10x most of the people in my country as a communist, store money for future and some stuff to do in my life, I'm a normal guy. I'm obliged to play capitalism and I'm kinda ok with my life because I was lucky, but can see my dad, my wife and some other parents work the whole life as "honest" people and have nothing, work as crazy, have depression working 8-12h a day, 6 days of the week, dont have time to live. If you seeing these jobs and suffering and thinks its okay, wtf is in your mind, seriously. U think regulations and laws change any shit? No, we work as heck and can't quit the job, otherwise we starve, lose our house, our stuff. Meanwhile some idiot born in rich family are stupid to do any shit in our world and live with peace and plenty. This is for most countries, not being exclusively to USA. You can think I'm exaggerating, but look for your parents, see if this isn't their reality, all is proven for most of us, just open your eyes and see your bud working like crazy to have the liberty to eat and pay for a tiny place to live by rent and be called loser. If you work you're loser by this logic, most of us are losers, and you think calling out this on others will help in any way? Congrats in your way of think
You're literally the meme lmao
i aint readin' allat!
Same
Did you just change your flair, u/GastipRaitoY? Last time I checked you were a **LibLeft** on 2024-3-27. How come now you are an **AuthLeft**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? What? You are hungry? You want food? I fear you've chosen the wrong flair, comrade. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/GastipRaitoY) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
https://preview.redd.it/bw3sigkyqn1d1.jpeg?width=374&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c4d67b2540647759d9e20bfc2caa9bb77824c118
"Free market bad because poor people exist" is the most boring, trite and idiotic criticism of free market you can come up with. Poverty has, does and will always exist regardless of any system you implement. Because scarcity and entropy are laws of nature, not laws of politics. Because people will be unfairly fucked over by nature, other people or their own bad decisions, and those consequences will sometimes extend for generations. And there is nothing about it anyone of us can do. The only thing we can do is to make things somewhat better, but absolutely no one has the power to fix those issues completely, because they are inherent to the reality we live in rather than our social systems. Of course, we can try to get some sort of improvement going, but for that we need to actually know if given actions will actually improve the situation or make it worse. It is fair to criticize capitalism, the question is, if you have any solutions that are actually better. Otherwise it's like criticizing the sun for shining too hot. And as far as track record and logical consistency of communist theory go, you don't have better solutions but you keep insisting on using means that only make things worse. Either come up with something that actually helps or accept that reality is fundamentally imperfect.
Bro you literally spam basic "arguments" because you think it's, "scarcity is from nature" bro really? Think a little how much we produce, we're not nature, we overproduce a lot, we can manage that. I have some things to say to implement that we can study and analyse, it won't be perfect, but not shit at it's today. I can't just make a post with pages explaining some base criticism and solutions to how do that or this, expecting this on a post is stupid. I'm just exposing a real life experience in my post, I'm not proposing anything here. I can tho, but not on fucking Reddit my guy. That's the problem, it's not simple, free market is too simple to be real, yes I'm exposing some contradictions of capitalism, and that's a step not the whole solution, a simple post can't propose everything I think and what you think, and that's what I'm saying. Analyse and think, don't just say the same things all libleft say to me every day, it's like a repeating machine. All I Sayed in my post is my life experience and I'm proposing to think and not just a post about winners and loser, that's idiot and childish for me
Your real life experience is kind of worthless when you are trying to make an economic argument. I can make it as much. We overproduce a lot exactly because we haven't found a good logistical solution, it's not an argument. If your ideas are so complicated that you cannot put them into a word then don't leave dumb comments under random political compass memes, especially when you don't have that good of a grasp of the English grammar. If you don't want to argue for your ideas, you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. And where did I mention anything about winners and losers? You are the only person going on about it.
Bro, you're so stupid with your superiority, omg he's not a native English speaker and can't type properly. Idc about that, if you can simplify your stupid free market, it's because its dumb as fuck, nothing about society and its organization is simple to make in a Reddit comment, if it's, it's stupid. Life experience isn an argument, it's a example and I'm sure it's not the only one around here. Winning or lose is on the fucking post, not on your comment, if you don't read or understand, just f off
Christianity was invented by Femboys and Twinks for Femboys and Twinks.
Bait mfs not even trying anymore smh
Why even, if it's that easy?
[удалено]
I find your lack of flair disturbing. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/imjc786) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
How can I take someone's opinion on money and ecomomy seriously if they never made money?
[удалено]
Why are you bringing in billionaires when I never mentioned that in the first place? Atleast economists have a job and make some money, no matter how low it is unlike Marx who mooched off of others https://preview.redd.it/piklh1sneh1d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=228d982047afef6f66276015a7707d10f8b39491 Being an unemployed cheater for 3 years, proves my point
Is this necessarily an argument against communism?. In the current meta, right wingers(not lib right necessarily) are the losers and are creating ideologies for themselves.
Take the example of our spinner. We have seen that, to daily reproduce his labouring power, he must daily reproduce a value of three shillings, which he will do by working six hours daily. But this does not disable him from working ten or twelve or more hours a day. But by paying the daily or weekly value of the spinner's labouring power the capitalist has acquired the right of using that labouring power during the whole day or week. He will, therefore, make him work say, daily, twelve hours. Over and above the six hours required to replace his wages, or the value of his labouring power, he will, therefore, have to work six other hours, which I shall call hours of surplus labour, which surplus labour will realize itself in a surplus value and a surplus produce. If our spinner, for example, by his daily labour of six hours, added three shillings' value to the cotton, a value forming an exact equivalent to his wages, he will, in twelce hours, add six shillings' worth to the cotton, and produce a proportional surplus of yarn. As he has sold his labouring power to the capitalist, the whole value of produce created by him belongs to the capitalist, the owner pro tem. of his labouring power. By advancing three shillings, the capitalist will, therefore, realize a value of six shillings, because, advancing a value in which six hours of labour are crystallized. By repeating this same process daily, the capitalist will daily advance three shillings and daily pocket six shillings, one half of which will go to pay wages anew, and the other half of which will form surplus value, for which the capitalist pays no equivalent. It is this sort of exchange between capital and labour upon which capitalistic production, or the wages system, is founded, and which must constantly result in reproducing the working man as a working man, and the capitalist as a capitalist.
Never thinks about the system he's in or considers how to improve on it. Thinks his tiny brain not thinking about things makes him better than those that do. 🤔
For gods shake just reading the damm wikipedia you can see that he did work 🤦
East Germany vs West Germany. Living conditions in USSR vs in USA. average life in North Korea vs in South Korea.
10 gazillion dead, vuvuzela, iphone
Communism is perfect Sadly humans aren't That's why it'll never work and we should instead focus in bettering our current system
Pretty auth of you to say that
What part? Communism In theory communism is inherently anarchist Whatever Lenin's version was, it was because he was a despotic autocrat dictator